Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Rolfe]

Actually, reading Hellmann's report, I can see why the PMF contingent are spitting nails. The bits I've looked at repeat almost word for word much of what has been discussed/concluded here. If you don't believe that is the truth, then it must look extraordinarily like collusion.

It's a bit like marking an exam. If two pupils have the same answer with the same working, and the answers agree very closely, and this is repeated for page after page, then it might strongly suggest collusion - if it's the wrong answer and false reasoning. However, if it's the right answer arrived at by sound logic, then of course the two scripts agree closely.

The posters on PMF are now hard-wired to believe this is the wrong answer - by months and years of reinforcing their own faulty reasoning in their little cocoon, and excluding anyone presenting the contrary opinion. Now they see the identical reasoning and conclusions they have been privately and incestuously shredding for months featuring in Hellmann's deathless prose. What else are they supposed to conclude?

Rolfe.

 

[Grinder]

Actually, reading Hellmann's report, I can see why the PMF contingent are spitting nails. The bits I've looked at repeat almost word for word much of what has been discussed/concluded here. If you don't believe that is the truth, then it must look extraordinarily like collusion.

Rolfe.

As I mentioned earlier here, in the US the judge often uses orders written by one side or the other with some handwritten changes and then signs them. Since the judges in Italy must write the report it seems natural that they would use all or part of the logic that the prevailing side had put forward. After all, didn't Massei use much of the Mignini/Comodi rational of the events in his report?

 

[smkovalinksy]

Actually, reading Hellmann's report, I can see why the PMF contingent are spitting nails. The bits I've looked at repeat almost word for word much of what has been discussed/concluded here. If you don't believe that is the truth, then it must look extraordinarily like collusion.

It's a bit like marking an exam. If two pupils have the same answer with the same working, and the answers agree very closely, and this is repeated for page after page, then it might strongly suggest collusion - if it's the wrong answer and false reasoning. However, if it's the right answer arrived at by sound logic, then of course the two scripts agree closely.

The posters on PMF are now hard-wired to believe this is the wrong answer - by months and years of reinforcing their own faulty reasoning in their little cocoon, and excluding anyone presenting the contrary opinion. Now they see the identical reasoning and conclusions they have been privately and incestuously shredding for months featuring in Hellmann's deathless prose. What else are they supposed to conclude? Rolfe.

I had thought the exact same thing:

There are only two ways to look at Hellmann's musings:

1. His conclusions echo the pro-innocence camp, simply because what the latter were saying for 2 years was the actual truth.

OR:

2. His conclusions echo the pro-innocence camp - which is all false - because he was in some manner persuaded or pressured to echo them.

What is frustrating is that the PGs do not for one moment consider that #1 is even a possibility.

I had also concluded, as you have, Rolfe, that if one begins with the idea that all supporting innocence is false, then it does indeed look as though Hellmann is merely serving as an official mouth piece for these false ideas; ergo, the remaining question becomes, who hath made Israel [Hellmann ] to sin?

 

[Rolfe]

As I mentioned earlier here, in the US the judge often uses orders written by one side or the other with some handwritten changes and then signs them. Since the judges in Italy must write the report it seems natural that they would use all or part of the logic that the prevailing side had put forward. After all, didn't Massei use much of the Mignini/Comodi rational of the events in his report?

Well, yes, that's the reasonable interpretation. But bear in mind the fixation the PMF posters have with "JLOL". (That's us!) It's here they have been reading all that logic, time and time again, as it was repeatedly chewed over and re-hashed.

I think it has come as quite a shock to the system for them to find themselves reading exactly the same stuff all over again in the motivations report.

Rolfe.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Well, yes, that's the reasonable interpretation. But bear in mind the fixation the PMF posters have with "JLOL". (That's us!) It's here they have been reading all that logic, time and time again, as it was repeatedly chewed over and re-hashed.

I think it has come as quite a shock to the system for them to find themselves reading exactly the same stuff all over again in the motivations report.

Rolfe.

That shock should be a call to revise their former thinking, not cling to it all the more.

 

[Dougm]

Actually, reading Hellmann's report, I can see why the PMF contingent are spitting nails. The bits I've looked at repeat almost word for word much of what has been discussed/concluded here. If you don't believe that is the truth, then it must look extraordinarily like collusion.

It's a bit like marking an exam. If two pupils have the same answer with the same working, and the answers agree very closely, and this is repeated for page after page, then it might strongly suggest collusion - if it's the wrong answer and false reasoning. However, if it's the right answer arrived at by sound logic, then of course the two scripts agree closely.

The posters on PMF are now hard-wired to believe this is the wrong answer - by months and years of reinforcing their own faulty reasoning in their little cocoon, and excluding anyone presenting the contrary opinion. Now they see the identical reasoning and conclusions they have been privately and incestuously shredding for months featuring in Hellmann's deathless prose. What else are they supposed to conclude?

Rolfe.

Reminds me of when I was in high school, and I had this annoying Biology teacher. In the classroom, we sat in pairs at lab tables, and the guy that sat next to me and I were two of the better students in the class, and also would joke around, annoying the teacher to no end. So one time, annoyed that the two of us had both gotten A on his test, despite not being as serious as he would have liked in class, he accused us of cheating in front of the other students. And one of the other students spoke out the obvious: "They can't be cheating, they are aceing the class!". Giggling ensued, and the annoying teacher slunk back to his desk.

The point was well taken. Since we were both getting As on the test, one of us had to know a large percentage of the answers. Since he was watching us as we took the test, one person could not copy everything from the other, and we could not have discussions to try to decide who knew what question. So to say that because we were both getting As on his tests that we must be cheating made no sense. The truth was we both found his tests, and his class, easy, and that annoyed him.

This example might not be an exact match for this situation, but what I see as similar is someone (or a group) who has taken a faulty assumption of fact (per the guilters thinking we must be wrong), and then trying to find facts that match the conclusion. Since we are clearly wrong, and Hellmann agrees with us, then someone is cheating! No one honest would agree with those JLOLers!! Or the IIPers! Or the FOAKers! No one would agree with them unless they were paid off, or dishonest, or incompetent, or something!

Sorry guilters. Your logic is off. Hellmann agrees because his conclusions match the evidence.

 

[codyjuneau]

There is another clue that indicates Meredith was intending to remove her laundry from the washing machine when she first discovered Rudy.

The picture of the hallway in the common area shows a folding clothes drying rack with no clothes on it. Since it is a folding rack it seems likely that when not in use it is folded and put away. If so then it also seems likely that Meredith:

• dropped her bag and books in her bedroom,
• returned to the common area where she extracted and unfolded the clothes rack,
• proceeded towards the laundry room to remove her wet clothes from the washing machine so she could hang them to dry,
• never did because she was confronted by Rudy.

 

[LondonJohn]

Thank you also from me to the dedicated translators. I have now read the section on the time of death and noted a couple of interesting points.

Hellmann seems not to have appreciated the significance of the full stomach and empty duodenum. This doesn't even rate a mention, and I suspect this is because, as a lawyer and not a doctor, he couldn't decide between the conflicting interpretations being offered. It may have been a judicious get-out simply to say that the medical evidence was inconclusive, and look at other matters.

I do note, however, that the time he quotes (10.13 pm) is indeed merely an outer limit from the non-medical evidence, not his actual time of death. His inner limit is the time Meredith can be calculated to have returned home, or shortly afterwards. So his findings as they relate to time of death are in fact around 9 to 9.30 (allowing time for the struggle and knowing that she didn't die instantly) at one end, and before 10.13 at the other.

In doing this, he has come to much the same conclusion as everyone else, without using the medical evidence at all. Of course, the earlier time is far more probable from the medical evidence, but the range he gives is rational from someone unsure whether the medical obfuscations from the prosecution side can really be dismissed.

The only thing I'm a bit unclear about is, if there was an aborted call to 901 at 9.58, then a non-connected call to Abbey at 10.01, why does he go as late as 10.13, the time of the aborted internet connection? He seems to have decided that Meredith would have been very unlikely to call 901, then abort the call before the end of the welcome message, and absolutely wouldn't have tried to call Abbey at that time of night, and certainly not without the +44 at the beginning. To me, that says the phone was in the hands of the burglar/attacker before 10 pm, and that he pressed these buttons trying to turn it off or something like that. Hellmann seems to concur. So why doesn't he set the outside end of the ToD at about 9.55? That would seem consistent with his logic. (It also fits better with Rudy's evidence, and although Rudy is obviously a liar it's less likely he would lie about something like that, which he would have reason to think might be independently verifiable.)

I also think the fact that Meredith didn't call home again after 9 pm isn't given as much weight as I would have given it. The aborted call shows she was thinking about calling her mum. Natural filial behaviour would have been to try again in 15 to 20 minutes, once she was in the house and sitting down in comfort, not leave it for an hour. So if she didn't call before 9.30, why not? Add that to the lack of evidence of her having done anything in the way of normal living after she got in, and again it tends to push the estimate towards the early limit rather than the late one.

But then, maybe none of that matters, if he believes that a ToD before 10.13 exonerates the defendants. That's what he's supposed to be deciding, after all.
Rolfe.

I think your last paragraph is the important thing. We've actually been engaging in this thread in a two-pronged discussion: 1) from the available evidence, should Knox and Sollecito be found guilty of the charges; 2) from the available evidence, can we make an educated guess as to what actually happened.

Hellmann'c court was - entirely correctly - only ever interested in the first of these. So once his court concluded that the ToD had to have been before 10.13pm, this in itself was sufficient to invalidate other significant parts of the prosecution case (chiefly the "earwitnesses" and poor old Toto the Messiah-Clown). Moving the ToD back further to the time strongly suggested by the medical evidence would not actually have been much more help in assessing the non-guilt of Knox/Sollecito: even if Hellmann had determined the ToD to be 9.30pm, this wouldn't have been any stronger an indicator of non-guilt than a ToD of <10.13pm would have been.

My sense on this issue is that Hellmann may have understood the medical argument (which was put forward cogently by the defence teams in closing arguments, along almost identical lines to those discussed here over many months). But at the same time he realised two things: firstly, it wasn't worth getting embroiled into the medical evidence on ToD if it only made very marginal difference to his ability to acquit; and secondly, a conclusion of a pre-10.13pm ToD covers that possibility anyhow.

By contrast, those of us debating what the evidence tells us about what really happened that night can afford to take a much more critical look at the medical evidence and its indications on ToD. As you know all too well from your medical experience and expertise, and as others amongst us have argued from the strength of peer-reviewed and published research, the available evidence indicates that Meredith almost certainly died between 9pm and 10pm. And within that window, it's much more likely that she died between 9pm and 9.30pm. As you also say, this marries very well with a large number of other known pieces of evidence: the strange failure of Meredith to call her sick mother back; the seeming fact that she was still wearing her jacket and trainers when attacked; the strange phone activity at around 10pm, the seeming failure to unload damp clothes from the washing machine; Guede's own admission in the Skype call (which was very likely an attempt to detach himself from things that outside witnesses might have heard) that Meredith screamed loudly at "9.20-9.30".

 

[Fine]

There is another clue that indicates Meredith was intending to remove her laundry from the washing machine when she first discovered Rudy. The picture of the hallway in the common area shows a folding clothes drying rack with no clothes on it. Since it is a folding rack it seems likely that when not in use it is folded and put away. If so then it also seems likely that Meredith:

• dropped her bag and books in her bedroom,
• returned to the common area where she extracted and unfolded the clothes rack,
• proceeded towards the laundry room to remove her wet clothes from the washing machine so she could hang them to dry,
• never did because she was confronted by Rudy.

______________

Cody,

An interesting theory but think it's inconsistent with the facts. Amanda said in her trial testimony that the drying rack was unfolded and in place on the afternoon of November 1st. On November 2nd, the drying rack ---as found by the cops ---still held clothing. See: HERE. It appears from the photograph that there's a grey article of clothing in the foreground and some dark article in the background. Maybe someone can locate a more detailed photograph.

///

 

[smkovalinksy]

Just an aside: I find this whole idea on pmf of contacting the media regarding a connection between Bremmer/Heavey/US Senator John Kerry in connection to the Hellmann rulings puzzling and semi-delusional. Especially since the poster with the "sources" seems to be going out of his way to make up excuses not to break the story. I cannot imagine such a story "breaking": But I will leave it for others to judge and ponder.

 

[Dougm]

We've actually been engaging in this thread in a two-pronged discussion: 1) from the available evidence, should Knox and Sollecito be found guilty of the charges; 2) from the available evidence, can we make an educated guess as to what actually happened.

Hellmann'c court was - entirely correctly - only ever interested in the first of these. So once his court concluded that the ToD had to have been before 10.13pm, this in itself was sufficient to invalidate other significant parts of the prosecution case (chiefly the "earwitnesses" and poor old Toto the Messiah-Clown). Moving the ToD back further to the time strongly suggested by the medical evidence would not actually have been much more help in assessing the non-guilt of Knox/Sollecito: even if Hellmann had determined the ToD to be 9.30pm, this wouldn't have been any stronger an indicator of non-guilt than a ToD of <10.13pm would have been.

My sense on this issue is that Hellmann may have understood the medical argument (which was put forward cogently by the defence teams in closing arguments, along almost identical lines to those discussed here over many months). But at the same time he realised two things: firstly, it wasn't worth getting embroiled into the medical evidence on ToD if it only made very marginal difference to his ability to acquit; and secondly, a conclusion of a pre-10.13pm ToD covers that possibility anyhow.

To take this a tad farther, I think that part of what Hellmann needs to do in his explanation of the verdict is make sure there are not parts of it where people (including the SC) can clearly argue that he is speculating or assuming facts he can't prove. Although it seems clear to many of us here that Meredith must have died before 9:30, for anyone to claim that there is certainty of a time of death within a 30 minute window in any case without an eyewitness is making a stretch, because there are always possible variables. So saying that she died no later that 10:13, when we know she was alive around 9 PM, is being about as specific as anyone can ever be given the available evidence.

 

[Kaosium]

My own view (and I've used this metaphor before) is that once the C&V report came out, the prosecution case was like a water buffalo that had been bitten by a Komodo dragon: it might manage to stay on its feet for a while longer, and the death-throes would be prolonged, painful and ugly but it wasn't going to survive.

Heh, heh. I think that analogy actually began with the Massei Report. Those outside the courtroom working off media reports which had been...misleading...about the case previously could hold out hope there was some evidence in it that would stand scrutiny. Once that 400 pages of translated bilge hit the fan, proving even the 'evidence' they'd heard about needed that much space to rationalize itself, it was only a matter of time like your little Komodo Dragon bite.

After the C&V Report they were more like a chicken with its head cut off, witness the ridiculous jailbird conspiracy and purported sex-change bribe that took up so much courtroom time during the appeal.

 

[Kaosium]

Actually, reading Hellmann's report, I can see why the PMF contingent are spitting nails. The bits I've looked at repeat almost word for word much of what has been discussed/concluded here. If you don't believe that is the truth, then it must look extraordinarily like collusion.

It's a bit like marking an exam. If two pupils have the same answer with the same working, and the answers agree very closely, and this is repeated for page after page, then it might strongly suggest collusion - if it's the wrong answer and false reasoning. However, if it's the right answer arrived at by sound logic, then of course the two scripts agree closely.

The posters on PMF are now hard-wired to believe this is the wrong answer - by months and years of reinforcing their own faulty reasoning in their little cocoon, and excluding anyone presenting the contrary opinion. Now they see the identical reasoning and conclusions they have been privately and incestuously shredding for months featuring in Hellmann's deathless prose. What else are they supposed to conclude?

Rolfe.

The same thing they 'concluded' when the C&V report came out. I had some hope that might snap some of them to their senses, as I knew some of them were dubious of the value of that 'evidence.' However I don't think the depths of Stefanoni and Biondo's depravity ever quite sank in, mainly because they had their 'resident experts' to 'debunk' it.

The fields of knowledge that have to be warped in order to maintain a belief in the guilt of Amanda and Raffaele is remarkable. Physiology, forensics, DNA analysis, psychology, criminology, physics, politics, journalism as well as Italian law and legal procedure, which they painted themselves as 'experts' on and found to their surprise so little of what they said actually worked the way they said it did. Everything has to be different in the world where Amanda and Raffaele are guilty.

I guess once one has bought into the folly so completely, for Hellmann's report to echo the understanding everyone else has of those subjects leads some to the inescapable conclusion that Hellmann must have cribbed it all from the 'PR campaign.' That highlights another difference between the interests and dedication of those still convinced in guilt and innocentisti, as the latter might learn something or even a lot about a number of interesting subjects relevant to the case and become more involved, while the former must 'unlearn' to achieve a warped understanding about virtually every field of human knowledge germane to the issue.

 

[Grinder]

If the exact time of death were determined by a stopped watch on her wrist with the lens broken at 8:43 the PGP would say that left plenty of time for the kids to bump into Rudy, get really high, sharpen the knife, play an intricate sex game with Meredith and kill her.

The TOD being moved to latest 10:15 means nothing to them about the ear witnesses or Curatolo or the tow truck people or anything.

As Rolfe said they are in cement on guilt and everything starts from there.

 

[MitNagel]

Just an aside: I find this whole idea on pmf of contacting the media regarding a connection between Bremmer/Heavey/US Senator John Kerry in connection to the Hellmann rulings puzzling and semi-delusional. Especially since the poster with the "sources" seems to be going out of his way to make up excuses not to break the story. I cannot imagine such a story "breaking": But I will leave it for others to judge and ponder.

There are no sources because there is no story. Why would a delusional middle aged lowly French translator sitting in Seattle be privy to any such behind the scenes high-level US Government goings-on?

 

[smkovalinksy]

If the exact time of death were determined by a stopped watch on her wrist with the lens broken at 8:43 the PGP would say that left plenty of time for the kids to bump into Rudy, get really high, sharpen the knife, play an intricate sex game with Meredith and kill her.

The TOD being moved to latest 10:15 means nothing to them about the ear witnesses or Curatolo or the tow truck people or anything.

As Rolfe said they are in cement on guilt and everything starts from there.

Yes. Difficult to understand why intelligent people would commit so many of the logical fallacies and so repeatedly and consistently. But the will to believe is stubborn, once indoctrinated.

 

[Rolfe]

To take this a tad farther, I think that part of what Hellmann needs to do in his explanation of the verdict is make sure there are not parts of it where people (including the SC) can clearly argue that he is speculating or assuming facts he can't prove. Although it seems clear to many of us here that Meredith must have died before 9:30, for anyone to claim that there is certainty of a time of death within a 30 minute window in any case without an eyewitness is making a stretch, because there are always possible variables. So saying that she died no later that 10:13, when we know she was alive around 9 PM, is being about as specific as anyone can ever be given the available evidence.

I think in a way it's even simpler than that. Hellmann actually contradicts himself slightly in two different sections of the report. In the section on time of death he says no later than 10.13, and seems to be putting the early limit at about 9 to 9.30. However, in the conclusion, he states the actual time of death as 10.15. I don't think he has any sound reason for that, as opposed to the range given earlier.

However, what he doesn't do is get into any runaround matching this time up with the confirmed sighting of Amanda and Rafaelle earlier in the evening, or the known times of access to Rafaelle's computer. He isn't even slightly interested in trying to figure out whether, if the last computer access was just after nine, it might be theoretically possible that they then headed straight off to the cottage, met Meredith and Rudy, and got into some weird crap that ended in murder at 10.15.

That's quite interesting, given how many electrons have died discussing that point. And I think the reason is clear. Hellmann has separately determined that there is no evidence in the cottage to suggest that either of them had anything to do with the murder. Rafaelle's knife wasn't the murder weapon, his DNA wasn't on the bra clasp, and none of the footprints could be identified as theirs.

There was also no particular reason to disbelieve their story that they spent the entire evening and night in Rafaelle's flat. All the little details and discrepancies in their stories were entirely explicable as innocent people simply not remembering the exact details of what they'd done. (Indeed, they had plenty time to agree on a consistent story if they'd been guilty - I'd have been more suspicious if their memories appeared too good and their stories matched too perfectly, to be honest.)

So where does that leave the time of death? It doesn't really matter that much. There's no particular reason to be figuring out if there might be a half-hour window when they could have rushed out and killed Meredith, than to be doing the same thing for Filomena, or anybody else in Perugia that evening.

Rolfe.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Just trying to finish a train of reflection. . .

I was just pondering, and trying to finish a train of reflection which ensued by reading the rumors RE Cantwell and Kerry on PMF: Wondered if anyone else might care to address my questions thereof:

• Supposing for the sake of argument, you were to attach some importance in WA state US Senator Maria Cantwell being a colleague of US Senator John Kerry, whose former brother-in-law David Thorne is the US Ambassador to Italy.
  
• And supposing Cantwell put pressure on Kerry, to put pressure on Thorne, to speak to Hellmann.
  
• Even so, if Knox were guilty, would Hellmann go out of his way to make the case for innocence? To what end? Would it not be more likely, presupposing such a chain of pressure had evolved, that Hellmann would only be further motivated to get to the bottom of the case, as it were, ferret out the truth, and if that pointed toward innocence, proclaim it as he would have otherwise?

• Why does this seem a far cry from a believable conspiracy theory or story of political influence and corruption? and more like a silly, contrived fantasy which would arise out of the minds of people who were over-thinking the case?
  
• Morevoer does it make any sense, as the poster on PMF said, that the Boston media would really be "salivating for such a story in a US election year"?
• Who, besides those at PMF/TJMK, would find such a narrative coherent , believable, shocking, or conducive to outrage?

Am I missing something? Anyone think that a story like this will "break"? Seems sort of silly and delusional to me....

 

[smkovalinksy]

There are no sources because there is no story. Why would a delusional middle aged lowly French translator sitting in Seattle be privy to any such behind the scenes high-level US Government goings-on?

I posted more on this before I had received your reply: The problem with a moderated forum. I think you are right, which is why s/he does not seem to be forthcoming with these "sources", nor confident that there even IS any story to break. Bah, I have wasted my time there, again.

 

[Bill Williams]

I was just pondering, and trying to finish a train of reflection which ensued by reading the rumors RE Cantwell and Kerry on PMF: Wondered if anyone else might care to address my questions thereof:

• Supposing for the sake of argument, you were to attach some importance in WA state US Senator Maria Cantwell being a colleague of US Senator John Kerry, whose former brother-in-law David Thorne is the US Ambassador to Italy.
  
• And supposing Cantwell put pressure on Kerry, to put pressure on Thorne, to speak to Hellmann.
  
• Even so, if Knox were guilty, would Hellmann go out of his way to make the case for innocence? To what end? Would it not be more likely, presupposing such a chain of pressure had evolved, that Hellmann would only be further motivated to get to the bottom of the case, as it were, ferret out the truth, and if that pointed toward innocence, proclaim it as he would have otherwise?

• Why does this seem a far cry from a believable conspiracy theory or story of political influence and corruption? and more like a silly, contrived fantasy which would arise out of the minds of people who were over-thinking the case?
  
• Morevoer does it make any sense, as the poster on PMF said, that the Boston media would really be "salivating for such a story in a US election year"?
• Who, besides those at PMF/TJMK, would find such a narrative coherent , believable, shocking, or conducive to outrage?

Am I missing something? Anyone think that a story like this will "break"? Seems sort of silly and delusional to me....

Using the standard six degress of separation, there is more than likely a more direct route from a US Senator from WA and Hellmann. My bet is that Anne Brmner knows Hellmann's mistress personally, and has the goods on Hellmann.

Then again, what this case has been reduced to is someone on PMF making a ridiculous comment (and strangely feels no shame making it) and someone here makes a counter-comment on how stupid it all is.

If that's what this has been reduced to, I really do feel for the Kerchers. I mean that. Neither Knox nor Raffaele had anything to do with the tragedy, people in the blogosphere are still yapping about it, and in 2012, the Kerchers have an empty place at the table.

That's about the sum of it.